You may have noticed that Chrysler released the longest ad in Super Bowl history on Sunday night, featuring the new Chrysler 200 driven by Detroit native rap star Eminem, an ad that CEO Sergio Marchionne says cost less than $9 million. But given that the company's CEO also announced this past week that is seeking a "better deal" on government loans, it is likely that this ad had more to do with getting political support than selling cars. Besides, is spending millions on a Super Bowl ad appropriate for a company that received a taxpayer bailout to recover from a bankruptcy?

Maybe the ad wasn't an appeal to car buyers, but rather politicians. According to the Detroit News, Chrysler is seeking a better deal on its bailout:

"I am paying shyster rates," Marchionne said, noting that Chrysler had no choice in 2009 but to pay the high interest rates the government set as part of its $15 billion Chrysler bailout. "We had no choice… I am going to pay the shyster loans."

He called the loans "a thorn in my side."

Chrysler's also in talks with banks to refinance its debt and plans to have an "agreement in principle" by end of March, he said.

Marchionne spoke at an auto industry conference sponsored by JD Power at a hotel here ahead of the National Automobile Dealers Association three-day convention. He said he is hopeful that the company can win an agreement in principle for $3 billion in low-cost Energy Department retooling loan — a move that is necessary for Chrysler to win private financing, Marchionne said.

That's right: Chrysler took $15 billion from taxpayers, to which it wasn't entitled, and at an industry convention its CEO calls taxpayers a word that is defined as "someone who acts in a disreputable, unethical, or unscrupulous way, especially in the practice of law, politics and used car sales." Message received: "Taxpayers' money saved a car company from bankruptcy and all they got was this lousy Super Bowl commercial."

And what a commercial. Chrysler turns to America to say that because Detroit has been "through hell and back" it has endured the "hottest fires which makes the hardest steel," and that the reason people don't know that is because newspaper reporters "don't know what [people in Detroit] are capable of."

A few things about that.

One: Chrysler didn't go through the hottest fires. Unless, of course, "hottest fires" means "skipping bankruptcy" and asking for a handout to protect union pensions, which it got. And when Fiat was able to take control of Chrysler, it was because of a heavily politicized deal facilitated by the president's auto task force. It even got $6.6 billion in exit financing by Uncle Sam. Most failing businesses have trouble finding buyers. Not Chrysler.

Two: Detroit may have been through a self-imposed over-taxed, over-regulated hell, but it certainly hasn't come back. Budget numbers still show Detroit's books in the red, despite Mayor Dave Bing's best efforts to rein in spending. And Pew reveals that Detroit residents spend more for their municipal legislature than any other major city in the U.S. Heck, even its library is facing a dire fiscal crisis.

Three: We know what Detroit is capable of because we saw it in the 1960s. We still see potential, too -- Michigan economist David Littman told The Examiner last year that there was plenty of reason to be optimistic:

"We're not even on the map," Littman notes. But the opportunity is there. "We have bargain basement prices on everything -- from water properties, which are a hallmark of growth, to infrastructure. And this is tied together with a large and progressive highway system. We also have the largest underground gas reserves in the nation."

Chrysler must have found the investment worthwhile, using the opportunity of the new Chrysler model to plug Detroit's tough "know-how." Fox was charging approximately $2.8 to $3 million per 30-second slot.

This ad doesn't reveal how tough and competent Detroit is. It shows how the federal government picks winners and losers. Guess which part the taxpayers play?

the Talking Can

02-08-2011, 12:34 PM

Yeah, they shouldn't advertise.....smart business plan

i remember that the Banks all stopped advertising when we handed them a trillion dollars....wait....

mikey23545

02-08-2011, 12:35 PM

So you figure Chrysler will be better off by suspending all advertising?

If you have stats showing that the sales resulting from these ads will yield less than $9 million in profit, then maybe this complaint makes sense.

Otherwise it's a retarded bitch about nothing.

edit: damn my slow typing! :cuss:

-King-

02-08-2011, 12:37 PM

So they should keep the money and not give their company any publicity? Yeahhh that will make them money real quick.
Posted via Mobile Device

mikey23545

02-08-2011, 12:43 PM

Yeah, I think whoever wrote this article is kind of a political Mecca...

alpha_omega

02-08-2011, 12:49 PM

I didn't see many of the commercials...were there any for Ford?

DaFace

02-08-2011, 12:51 PM

Yeah, they shouldn't advertise.....smart business plan

i remember that the Banks all stopped advertising when we handed them a trillion dollars....wait....

So you figure Chrysler will be better off by suspending all advertising?

If you have stats showing that the sales resulting from these ads will yield less than $9 million in profit, then maybe this complaint makes sense.

Otherwise it's a retarded bitch about nothing.

edit: damn my slow typing! :cuss:

So they should keep the money and not give their company any publicity? Yeahhh that will make them money real quick.
Posted via Mobile Device

Glad to see reasonable responses instead of my expected:

http://www.wingstaiwan.com/avatars/oh_noes.gif

Deberg_1990

02-08-2011, 12:52 PM

So they should keep the money and not give their company any publicity? Yeahhh that will make them money real quick.
Posted via Mobile Device

I think its the 9mil figure thats got some up in arms.

If it was only 1 or2 mil, it might not look as bad.

DaFace

02-08-2011, 12:56 PM

I think its the 9mil figure thats got some up in arms.

If it was only 1 or2 mil, it might not look as bad.

Chrysler spends over a billion on advertising every year. $9 mil ain't nothin.

Saulbadguy

02-08-2011, 12:56 PM

I think its the 9mil figure thats got some up in arms.

If it was only 1 or2 mil, it might not look as bad.

So .006% of the money they received is just flat out too much to be spending on advertising, eh?

Pitt Gorilla

02-08-2011, 12:56 PM

It was a good commercial.

Buck

02-08-2011, 12:56 PM

There was a Kia commercial for some car that cost $19k. The cost of the commercial + The spot for the ad must have cost around $4 million.

I really doubt they are going to sell enough of those $19k cars to break even on that ad.

Saulbadguy

02-08-2011, 12:57 PM

There was a Kia commercial for some car that cost $19k. The cost of the commercial + The spot for the ad must have cost around $4 million.

I really doubt they are going to sell enough of those $19k cars to break even on that ad.

That's not how it works, dumbass.

Brock

02-08-2011, 12:59 PM

There was a Kia commercial for some car that cost $19k. The cost of the commercial + The spot for the ad must have cost around $4 million.

I really doubt they are going to sell enough of those $19k cars to break even on that ad.

You're obviously really business savvy. You think the sales of the Forte alone has to pay for that ad?

swayy07

02-08-2011, 12:59 PM

im not saying the shouldn't advertise but how many other commercial spots do you think they can get for the price of one super bowl ad? 9 mil for a 30 sec ad is a gross mis-use of taxpayer bail out dollars

ReynardMuldrake

02-08-2011, 01:02 PM

GM has already paid back 6.7 billion in bailout money and continue to pay it off. If buying more advertising generates revenue to help them to pay back the loans why in the world would anybody want to stop them?

Pitt Gorilla

02-08-2011, 01:03 PM

im not saying the shouldn't advertise but how many other commercial spots do you think they can get for the price of one super bowl ad? 9 mil for a 30 sec ad is a gross mis-use of taxpayer bail out dollarsHow many people do you suppose saw their SB ad? How many would see their ad airing during Weekend at Bernie's 2 on TBS?

Buck

02-08-2011, 01:03 PM

That's not how it works, dumbass.

You're obviously really business savvy. You think the sales of the Forte alone has to pay for that ad?

I'm not going to lie and pretend like I know what I am talking about, but that was the only car commercial that I can remember that featured a single model. The other ones just showed the brand.

jbwm89

02-08-2011, 01:04 PM

Eminem is not from Detroit anyways...

Saulbadguy

02-08-2011, 01:05 PM

I'm not going to lie and pretend like I know what I am talking about, but that was the only car commercial that I can remember that featured a single model. The other ones just showed the brand.

Chevy Volt
Chevy Cruze

tk13

02-08-2011, 01:06 PM

I thought it worked out well. It was a very good ad, and it turned out to be the most watched television event in history.

Brock

02-08-2011, 01:07 PM

I'm not going to lie and pretend like I know what I am talking about, but that was the only car commercial that I can remember that featured a single model. The other ones just showed the brand.

The Eminem ad was for the Chrysler 200.

Buck

02-08-2011, 01:07 PM

Chevy Volt
Chevy Cruze

Alright I was also extremely inebriated (sp?) during the game.

swayy07

02-08-2011, 01:08 PM

How many people do you suppose saw their SB ad? How many would see their ad airing during Weekend at Bernie's 2 on TBS?

how many people do you think saw their 9 million dollar ad during the super bowl and thought why are they advertising when they just got bailed out with OUR money. im not saying they shouldnt advertise at all but the SB ad was just a bad idea IMO

Pitt Gorilla

02-08-2011, 01:09 PM

how many people do you think saw their 9 million dollar ad during the super bowl and thought why are they advertising when they just got bailed out with OUR money. im not saying they shouldnt advertise at all but the SB ad was just a bad idea IMONot very many.

the Talking Can

02-08-2011, 01:11 PM

Halliburton steals more than that from the government in an hour...there are unaccounted billions after billions in railroaded government contracts

and people complain about 9mill spent by a company trying to actually compete for american jobs?

swayy07

02-08-2011, 01:12 PM

Not very many.

then we can agree to disagree

gblowfish

02-08-2011, 01:18 PM

A good chunk of the cost of a new car goes toward advertising and marketing said car.

And....

Thread off to the DC in 3.....2......1.....

Saulbadguy

02-08-2011, 01:24 PM

then we can agree to disagree

You're an idiot.

Frazod

02-08-2011, 01:28 PM

Halliburton steals more than that from the government in an hour...there are unaccounted billions after billions in railroaded government contracts

and people complain about 9mill spent by a company trying to actually compete for american jobs?

Good point.

Bob Dole

02-08-2011, 01:31 PM

Halliburton steals more than that from the government in an hour...there are unaccounted billions after billions in railroaded government contracts

and people complain about 9mill spent by a company trying to actually compete for american jobs?

Ahhh, the ever-popular "this bad isn't as bad as some other bad, so it's not really bad at all" logic.

And we wonder why this country is going to shit...

Hoover

02-08-2011, 01:32 PM

Great ad.

Shocked that Obama wasn't in it.

jAZ

02-08-2011, 01:32 PM

It was a good commercial.

Money well spent.

Cave Johnson

02-08-2011, 02:23 PM

31K posts, and you can't tell a political article from a conservative newspaper is DC material? Come on, man.

As to the writer's "point', if the ad's a success and people buy more Chryslers, the taxpayers get paid back faster. That's how good advertising works.

Deberg_1990

02-08-2011, 02:25 PM

31K posts, and you can't tell a political article from a conservative newspaper is DC material?

Come on, man.

eh, i went back and forth on it and decided on this forum......for the most part, people have remained non political on it.

the Talking Can

02-08-2011, 02:46 PM

Ahhh, the ever-popular "this bad isn't as bad as some other bad, so it's not really bad at all" logic.

And we wonder why this country is going to shit...

they're not the same at all...and that commercial has absolutely nothing to do with "why this country is going to shit"....in fact, it's evidence of some positive efforts to do something for actual fucking workers in this actual fucking country...

it was a great ad, and $$ well spent

Coach

02-08-2011, 02:47 PM

I'm sure it's a great ad, but it's not going to convince me to buy a Chrysler.

Detoxing

02-08-2011, 02:56 PM

I enjoyed the Chrysler ad. It stuck out in a lot of people's minds. I never would've known what a Chrysler 200 was w/o it.

Another good one, for me at least, and actually has me considering buying this car, is the Hyundai Elantra.

chasedude

02-08-2011, 02:59 PM

Eminem is not from Detroit anyways...

I was wondering if someone from St. Joe would post this... :clap:

gblowfish

02-08-2011, 03:01 PM

The last two Jeeps I've bought were built in the Jefferson Street plant in downtown Detroit. You can't get anymore "Motown" than driving a Jeep!

googlegoogle

02-08-2011, 03:01 PM

Chrysler goes bankrupt every 20 years.

Valiant

02-08-2011, 03:12 PM

I thought it worked out well. It was a very good ad, and it turned out to be the most watched television event in history.

Wut? American event?

Dave Lane

02-08-2011, 03:14 PM

Chrysler goes bankrupt every 20 years.

And you're mentally bankrupt everyday. Do you have a point?

Discuss Thrower

02-08-2011, 03:14 PM

how many people do you think saw their 9 million dollar ad during the super bowl and thought why are they advertising when they just got bailed out with OUR money. im not saying they shouldnt advertise at all but the SB ad was just a bad idea IMO

I did as soon as I saw the Cruze ad with the old folks. Thought the GM ads were in bad taste considering how expensive the whole thing is.

ChiefsCountry

02-08-2011, 03:17 PM

Well the ad its job its two days after the game and people are still talking about it.
Posted via Mobile Device

How isn't it? A quality ad will influence more people to buy thus making the 9mm spent very worth it.
Posted via Mobile Device

WV

02-08-2011, 05:08 PM

Halliburton steals more than that from the government in an hour...there are unaccounted billions after billions in railroaded government contracts

and people complain about 9mill spent by a company trying to actually compete for american jobs?

Yes they are competing for American jobs to an extent, but unfortunately Chrysler like the other members from the big three are far from "American" cars anymore.

I don't fault them though for wanting to advertise during the biggest advertising opportunity on TV it's a prudent thing to do....at least they didn't come out with a "Paid in full" piece of crap commercial.

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-08-2011, 05:08 PM

They should have just shown the opening credits to Action Jackson.

boogblaster

02-08-2011, 05:09 PM

In case you haven't noticed .. most car commercials are for the high earners anyway .. who cares ......

Okie_Apparition

02-08-2011, 05:19 PM

Doritos are going to have to sell a shit-ton of corn chips to pay for their ads. Good thing the guberment keeps their nose out of agricultre. Dipshits

Guru

02-08-2011, 05:27 PM

I think all superbowl ads are a waste of money. It's ridiculous to throw that kind of money at 30 second spots. I don't care how watched the superbowl is.

Yes, I know all the corporate brains will be here to tell me I'm and idiot.

chiefzilla1501

02-08-2011, 05:49 PM

I think all superbowl ads are a waste of money. It's ridiculous to throw that kind of money at 30 second spots. I don't care how watched the superbowl is.

Yes, I know all the corporate brains will be here to tell me I'm and idiot.

I work in Marketing. I don't think they're a waste of money per se, but it's not what I would spend my money on. I think Chrysler shot a terrific ad. But when they crunch the numbers, the effectiveness won't justify the cost.

Sorry to be Debbie Downer. But if you're buying a 30-second spot for the Super Bowl for a lesser-liked brand like Chrysler, you have to hit it out of the park. If you buy a 2-minute spot, you better hit a grand slam while doing cartwheels.

chiefzilla1501

02-08-2011, 05:52 PM

I work in Marketing. I don't think they're a waste of money per se, but it's not what I would spend my money on. I think Chrysler shot a terrific ad. But when they crunch the numbers, the effectiveness won't justify the cost.

Sorry to be Debbie Downer. But if you're buying a 30-second spot for the Super Bowl for a lesser-liked brand like Chrysler, you have to hit it out of the park. If you buy a 2-minute spot, you better hit a grand slam while doing cartwheels.

But by the way, was it a waste for Chrysler to do it? They're going to have a negative ROI and lose money on the ads, but I think it was a good decision. I don't think there was any reason, however, to make it 2 minutes. I don't know why they couldn't have produced it in 60-seconds.

ChiefsCountry

02-08-2011, 05:52 PM

I think all superbowl ads are a waste of money. It's ridiculous to throw that kind of money at 30 second spots. I don't care how watched the superbowl is.

Yes, I know all the corporate brains will be here to tell me I'm and idiot.

What's so silly about it. They are basically paying $100 per person to see that ad.

BigRedChief

02-08-2011, 05:53 PM

Chrysler spends over a billion on advertising every year. $9 mil ain't nothin.THIS!

This is just partisan crap.

ChiefsCountry

02-08-2011, 05:54 PM

But by the way, was it a waste for Chrysler to do it? They're going to have a negative ROI and lose money on the ads, but I think it was a good decision. I don't think there was any reason, however, to make it 2 minutes. I don't know why they couldn't have produced it in 60-seconds.

ROI isn't what they are going for, especially for that car. The buzz they got from that ad is worth a hell lot more for Chrysler has a whole than just the 200. They don't get nearly the PR if they run a 1 minute but the 2 minute ad is what everyone is talking about it. Really a brillant move by Chrysler ad agency.

kysirsoze

02-08-2011, 05:56 PM

But by the way, was it a waste for Chrysler to do it? They're going to have a negative ROI and lose money on the ads, but I think it was a good decision. I don't think there was any reason, however, to make it 2 minutes. I don't know why they couldn't have produced it in 60-seconds.

I know little to nothing about the real cost-benefit, but I can say everyone I watched it with was pretty impressed. It's hard to do a really impactful dramatic 30 second spot. The funny ones don't need a lot of time, but this one had to build. I thought it was at least a top 3 ad this SB.

BigRedChief

02-08-2011, 05:59 PM

ROI isn't what they are going for, especially for that car. The buzz they got from that ad is worth a hell lot more for Chrysler has a whole than just the 200. They don't get nearly the PR if they run a 1 minute but the 2 minute ad is what everyone is talking about it. Really a brillant move by Chrysler ad agency.no chit. People are talking about the ad. Imported from Detroit...Magnificent copy.

America used to make great cars, They are on the road to making great cars again. I think thats why the ad has legs at the water cooler.

|Zach|

02-08-2011, 06:01 PM

It is just building a brand. I mean...you are guys are not looking at the big picture.

Coke advertising isn't there so you will turn off your TV and run outside and buy a coke after you see it. Its intent is to make a connection so when you feel like you are thirsty it is coke that will be top of mind.

Being able to connect a brand or product to very specific feelings or actions is worth a lot. Creating a feeling that you are associating something bigger than the product is huge. Think about being a Chiefs fan. It isn't just a shirt its being part of a community and franchise I love (I know that sounds way corny but you know what I mean) Some of you are taking the narrow view.

Brock

02-08-2011, 06:04 PM

It is just building a brand. I mean...you are guys are not looking at the big picture.

Coke advertising isn't there so you will turn off your TV and run outside and buy a coke after you see it. Its intent is to make a connection so when you feel like you are thirsty it is coke that will be top of mind.

Being able to connect a brand or product to very specific feelings or actions is worth a lot. Creating a feeling that you are associating something bigger than the product is huge. Think about being a Chiefs fan. It isn't just a shirt its being part of a community and franchise I love (I know that sounds way corny but you know what I mean) Some of you are taking the narrow view.

I get it with car advertising, but I really do not think anybody ever drank a coke or a pepsi based on advertising.

tk13

02-08-2011, 06:04 PM

Just look at the fact that we have a 60+ post thread about that commercial alone. I think it was a great move to put their 2 minutes of time into one ad instead of breaking it up into 3-4 smaller ads.

chiefzilla1501

02-08-2011, 06:07 PM

ROI isn't what they are going for, especially for that car. The buzz they got from that ad is worth a hell lot more for Chrysler has a whole than just the 200.

The problem with Network TV and the reason so many brands are choosing not to advertise on it is that you're spending a gazillion dollars to reach a whole bunch of people who will never have any interest whatsoever in your car. It doesn't matter if a 30 year old stockbroker thought your ad was cool. He's not buying your car. Even worse for the Super Bowl. Nobody 35 and up is going to buy this car. Nobody with over $75-100K income is going to buy this car.

The Super Bowl has become obsolete because the new media world allows you to buy targeted cable buys for a shitload cheaper. With a $9M spot, imagine how many times you could run this ad on MTV, BET, during TV shows about cars, etc.... I would much rather my target audience see the ad 10 times than for them to see it once during the Super Bowl.

That's why few brands take risks during the Super Bowl anymore. I get why Chrysler did it and I don't think it was a particularly bad decision. But I think 2 minutes was over the top and I think when all's said and done, the overall results are not going to come close to justifying the cost.

chiefzilla1501

02-08-2011, 06:09 PM

I know little to nothing about the real cost-benefit, but I can say everyone I watched it with was pretty impressed. It's hard to do a really impactful dramatic 30 second spot. The funny ones don't need a lot of time, but this one had to build. I thought it was at least a top 3 ad this SB.

With all the noise and ruckus going on in most Super Bowl parties, they're not going to listen to a lot of content where they have to concentrate. Especially when you're a few beers in. When I recall the ad the morning after, I remember a few small buzz clips about industrial Detroit and then a really cool end sequence with Eminem. You would have had about the same effect with a 1-minute spot and saved yourself a shitload of money.

|Zach|

02-08-2011, 06:12 PM

I get it with car advertising, but I really do not think anybody ever drank a coke or a pepsi based on advertising.

Top of mind Top of mind.

I think we as consumers make more decisions sub consciously than we think from the advertising that is thrusted into our lives every hour. Just a hunch I don't have anything to back that up...it is above my pay grade.

chiefzilla1501

02-08-2011, 06:13 PM

I get it with car advertising, but I really do not think anybody ever drank a coke or a pepsi based on advertising.

A lot more than you realize. Soft drinks make sense for these kinds of mass buzz advertising plays. Cars are a lot tougher--you have to absolutely nail it.

|Zach|

02-08-2011, 06:14 PM

The problem with Network TV and the reason so many brands are choosing not to advertise on it is that you're spending a gazillion dollars to reach a whole bunch of people who will never have any interest whatsoever in your car. It doesn't matter if a 30 year old stockbroker thought your ad was cool. He's not buying your car. Even worse for the Super Bowl. Nobody 35 and up is going to buy this car. Nobody with over $75-100K income is going to buy this car.

The Super Bowl has become obsolete because the new media world allows you to buy targeted cable buys for a shitload cheaper. With a $9M spot, imagine how many times you could run this ad on MTV, BET, during TV shows about cars, etc.... I would much rather my target audience see the ad 10 times than for them to see it once during the Super Bowl.

That's why few brands take risks during the Super Bowl anymore. I get why Chrysler did it and I don't think it was a particularly bad decision. But I think 2 minutes was over the top and I think when all's said and done, the overall results are not going to come close to justifying the cost.

I don't disagree with your take about the importance and value of more focused niche advertising but I just don't believe the obsolete declaration when it comes to the SB ads in the least. It isn't for every company though for sure.

chiefzilla1501

02-08-2011, 06:16 PM

Top of mind Top of mind.

I think we as consumers make more decisions sub consciously than we think from the advertising that is thrusted into our lives every hour. Just a hunch I don't have anything to back that up...it is above my pay grade.

You are 100% correct.
http://www.interbrand.com/en/best-global-brands/best-global-brands-2008/best-global-brands-2010.aspx

That's basically a measure of what the brand is worth. Not the company. Not the operations. The brand itself. Coke's is worth $70B.

Their job in the Super Bowl is to be noticed, make people remember you, and maintain your brand. A lot different from a brand like Chrysler that's trying to get you to notice you, get you to think about buying, get you to think about buying your car specifically, and then convince you to buy after you've weighed 3 or 4 car choices.

Chrysler may have gotten people to Step 1. But a Super Bowl ad isn't going to be nearly enough to get them through Steps 2-4.

chiefzilla1501

02-08-2011, 06:22 PM

I don't disagree with your take about the importance and value of more focused niche advertising but I just don't believe the obsolete declaration when it comes to the SB ads in the least. It isn't for every company though for sure.

The Super Bowl isn't obsolete for mega brands just maintaining their image.
It's also a great chance for E*Trade and Go Daddy, who were nothings, to get on the map. Sometimes it works, and sometimes you make offensive ads about asian pandas that sink your business. Huge risk, but the payoff can be enormous.

Mid-level brands are a different story. Unless you hit the ball completely out of the park, they'll generally lose quite a bit of money on their Super Bowl ad.

ChiefsCountry

02-08-2011, 06:23 PM

The problem with Network TV and the reason so many brands are choosing not to advertise on it is that you're spending a gazillion dollars to reach a whole bunch of people who will never have any interest whatsoever in your car. It doesn't matter if a 30 year old stockbroker thought your ad was cool. He's not buying your car. Even worse for the Super Bowl. Nobody 35 and up is going to buy this car. Nobody with over $75-100K income is going to buy this car.

The Super Bowl has become obsolete because the new media world allows you to buy targeted cable buys for a shitload cheaper. With a $9M spot, imagine how many times you could run this ad on MTV, BET, during TV shows about cars, etc.... I would much rather my target audience see the ad 10 times than for them to see it once during the Super Bowl.

That's why few brands take risks during the Super Bowl anymore. I get why Chrysler did it and I don't think it was a particularly bad decision. But I think 2 minutes was over the top and I think when all's said and done, the overall results are not going to come close to justifying the cost.

You are over thinking this. Its not about the car. Its about Chrysler. Car is the random part of this ad. Chrysler is what they are going for and the Chrysler brand has gotten a great PR hit on. We wouldn't be on here talking about it if they had ran a normal advertising campaign. But the Super Bowl in general isn't niche marketing, its about making a splash and Chrysler nailed it.

Pitt Gorilla

02-08-2011, 06:44 PM

Top of mind Top of mind.

I think we as consumers make more decisions sub consciously than we think from the advertising that is thrusted into our lives every hour. Just a hunch I don't have anything to back that up...it is above my pay grade.As a country Coke and Pepsi own the market. That is due in large part to advertising (over time).

Rukdafaidas

02-08-2011, 07:07 PM

What's so silly about it. They are basically paying $100 per person to see that ad.

In a marketing class in college, we found that a Superbowl commercial was one of the least expensive ways to advertise. If you figure it as cost per person viewing the ad. It was much cheaper than any other way at the time.
Take this ad for example. They said that 111 million people saw the Superbowl in the US alone. If everyone caught this commercial, that's $9m/111m = $.08 per person......Not bad at all. That's cheaper than direct mail.
Hell, 4 million people have viewed the same ad on youtube.com and it didn't cost them anything for that.

chiefzilla1501

02-08-2011, 07:17 PM

You are over thinking this. Its not about the car. Its about Chrysler. Car is the random part of this ad. Chrysler is what they are going for and the Chrysler brand has gotten a great PR hit on. We wouldn't be on here talking about it if they had ran a normal advertising campaign. But the Super Bowl in general isn't niche marketing, its about making a splash and Chrysler nailed it.

When you buy an unheard of $9.5M spot, you pay a famous rapper a million or so to star in it... they probably paid somewhere between $12-13M total for the spot. It's absolutely about the car. For an expensive ad buy, you better over a 5-year period sell a lot more cars. For a $12-13M one-time buy, your sales better be exploding. My guess it that over 90% of the crowd watching the Super Bowl either would never buy a Chrysler, or hates Eminem, or will probably forget about the ad in a few months. Several more % will never motivate themselves to shop for a car, others will read reviews and realize that they don't want the car, others will put it in their top 3 and realize they wanted another car more. A car isn't a candy bar--there is a lot that has to happen for that buzz to turn into a sale. And my guess is that when the dust settles, Chrysler will make a few more sales, but not nearly enough to justify the expense.

That's why "niche" marketing is more popular these days. Because Chrysler spent probably $10M to reach a crowd that will never have interest in a Chrysler, even if it came with a free Heidi Klum. Meanwhile, in a targeted "niche" media buy, well over half of the people watching will probably be interested. And you do it for a very, very, very small % of the cost of a Super Bowl ad. I'd rather reach a guy who might want to buy my car 10 times with a cheap media buy than miss on 9 people to get 1 guy who might be interested to see it once.

Being in the business, people get so gung ho about buzz. it's not about buzz in a high impact purchase like a car. It's about selling cars. Oh, and by the way, those Old Spice "Man your man could smell like" that created a ginormous buzz for a fraction of Chrysler's Super Bowl buy? They really haven't sold any more body wash because of it. Buzz is overrated.

KcMizzou

02-08-2011, 07:19 PM

The ad itself was outstanding. I think it needed the longer running time for the slow build. It felt like a theatrical movie trailer. I don't know if it makes me want to buy a Chrysler, but it made me want to watch 8 Mile again...lol

chiefzilla1501

02-08-2011, 07:24 PM

In a marketing class in college, we found that a Superbowl commercial was one of the least expensive ways to advertise. If you figure it as cost per person viewing the ad. It was much cheaper than any other way at the time.
Take this ad for example. They said that 111 million people saw the Superbowl in the US alone. If everyone caught this commercial, that's $9m/111m = $.08 per person......Not bad at all. That's cheaper than direct mail.
Hell, 4 million people have viewed the same ad on youtube.com and it didn't cost them anything for that.

The more important measure is targeted impressions. And over 90% of the Super Bowl audience, I would imagine, is not in the demographic for this ad. They're either too old or conservative for Eminem or have too high of an income to want a Chrysler.

Furthermore, you're assuming that someone can see the ad once and immediately have a reaction. Studies have shown you have to see an ad 5-7 times to even get you to consider the brand. Even moreso, probably, for a brand like Chrysler that has a lot of image issues to fight.

underEJ

02-08-2011, 07:33 PM

I get it with car advertising, but I really do not think anybody ever drank a coke or a pepsi based on advertising.

I think it's pretty well known that the Pepsi Challenge ad campaign made Pepsi the big player it is now.

I liked the Chrysler ad, I thought the car looked nice, way better than it ever did as a Sebring. They got so many more views Monday than just the Super Bowl run. I would guess it is considered very successful branding, and it will be a year before sales results will be available to judge the return.

BigRedChief

02-08-2011, 07:37 PM

The more important measure is targeted impressions. And over 90% of the Super Bowl audience, I would imagine, is not in the demographic for this ad. They're either too old or conservative for Eminem or have too high of an income to want a Chrysler.

Furthermore, you're assuming that someone can see the ad once and immediately have a reaction. Studies have shown you have to see an ad 5-7 times to even get you to consider the brand. Even moreso, probably, for a brand like Chrysler that has a lot of image issues to fight.

Your marketing education and experience notwithstanding you are missing the point. Look no farther than this thread. There are other threads like this on other boards. There are private conversations taking place about the ad. Whole cities are talking about it. That is worth more than ads on late night MTV.

ChiefsCountry

02-08-2011, 07:50 PM

Your marketing education and experience notwithstanding you are missing the point. Look no farther than this thread. There are other threads like this on other boards. There are private conversations taking place about the ad. Whole cities are talking about it. That is worth more than ads on late night MTV.

Exactly. It wasn't a niche marketing ad. No shit they could have spent less to sell that certain car and hit the right people, but it wasn't about that. People are talking about Chrysler, the 200 car was just the prop. Chrysler is back into people's minds which is what they were going for.

Marcellus

02-08-2011, 07:56 PM

Chrysler 200 was reported to be the top google search Monday morning.

I would say that was $ well spent.

chiefzilla1501

02-08-2011, 07:59 PM

Your marketing education and experience notwithstanding you are missing the point. Look no farther than this thread. There are other threads like this on other boards. There are private conversations taking place about the ad. Whole cities are talking about it. That is worth more than ads on late night MTV.

I'm not missing any real point. How long do you think the buzz will last? Think one week from now there will be any water cooler conversations about Chrysler? And again, how many people talking about Chrysler have any even remote intention of even considering buying one in the next 5 years? Slim to none. That's the problem with buzz. We assume that because people are talking about it, that's going to lead to people buying your product.

The Old Spice guy was buzz (and by the way, on a fraction of the budget Chrysler spent). Funny ads that people talked about months later and still do. For $12M, Chrysler doesn't come close to touching that buzz. Same with E*Trade baby--a 30-second spot and 3 years later, people still talk about it.

I've seen the research. A ton of ads get a lot of hype because they were entertaining ads that got people talking, but nobody ended up buying the product. In the end, people are interested in brands, but they still have to buy your car. That ad got people talking a lot about Eminem and Chrysler, but have you heard a single person talk positively at all about the car they're selling?

chiefzilla1501

02-08-2011, 08:00 PM

Exactly. It wasn't a niche marketing ad. No shit they could have spent less to sell that certain car and hit the right people, but it wasn't about that. People are talking about Chrysler, the 200 car was just the prop. Chrysler is back into people's minds which is what they were going for.

And it will be out of their minds in 1-2 weeks.

rtmike

02-08-2011, 08:05 PM

I don't understand how the CEO wanting better interest rates 11-12% on the bailout loan means Chrysler is after more money from tax payers?

Supposedly Fiat has some bank loans lined up at cheaper interest rates. So they'll be paying off the government. But the government bailed out the banks too so?

As a Mopar supporter I'm glad he's trying to save some money any way he can. I'm willing to bet the loans will be paid off so I don't give a shit how they spend the money.

BigRedChief

02-08-2011, 08:12 PM

Chrysler 200 was reported to be the top google search Monday morning.

I would say that was $ well spent.Chiefzilla101 the marketing draftubator of the Planet says you are FOS.

chiefzilla1501

02-08-2011, 08:14 PM

Chrysler 200 was reported to be the top google search Monday morning.

I would say that was $ well spent.

So $12M to get to the top of Google for one morning?

I guess Matt Cassel was a steal.

ChiefsCountry

02-08-2011, 08:14 PM

And it will be out of their minds in 1-2 weeks.

And then that is when you hit with your regualar targeted marketing campaign.

|Zach|

02-08-2011, 08:15 PM

So $12M to get to the top of Google for one morning?

I guess Matt Cassel was a steal.

I think the fact that a bunch of random assholes on a football message board are sitting around talking about Chrysler at all is pretty impressive evidence.

You are blowing off being a top google search. The trickle down effect from something like that is staggering.

I don't think it is that much money at all for what they will get back. 12M?

Not a huge deal.

chiefzilla1501

02-08-2011, 08:29 PM

I think the fact that a bunch of random assholes on a football message board are sitting around talking about Chrysler at all is pretty impressive evidence.

You are blowing off being a top google search. The trickle down effect from something like that is staggering.

I don't think it is that much money at all for what they will get back. 12M?

Not a huge deal.

It's a very big deal. For $12M, you can buy 2,400 30-second spots in New York. And that's buy and far the most expensive market in the country. 2,400.

And Paid internet search? For a full year, I'm pretty sure companies generally spend in the low millions. $12M for one week at the top is an accomplishment?

ReynardMuldrake

02-08-2011, 08:32 PM

As a country Coke and Pepsi own the market. That is due in large part to advertising (over time).

What about Dr. Pepper/7-up?

|Zach|

02-08-2011, 08:38 PM

It's a very big deal. For $12M, you can buy 2,400 30-second spots in New York. And that's buy and far the most expensive market in the country. 2,400.

And Paid internet search? For a full year, I'm pretty sure companies generally spend in the low millions. $12M for one week at the top is an accomplishment?

Paid search doesn't get you #1. I think you are looking at what is on the sheet and giving zero credit to the next level of influence.

You are counting the amount of people a bike shop owner tells about the bike and giving no love to the guy that goes to his bike club and tells everyone about it.

Their message? Is everywhere now. Absolutely every where. They are turning the heads of people who influence other people.

People trust the word of mouth of other people more than from a company directly. And right now that word of mouth is about Chrysler and it is popular. More people watched this SB than any show in history.

chiefzilla1501

02-08-2011, 08:45 PM

And then that is when you hit with your regualar targeted marketing campaign.

Which will fade into the background like every other campaign unless they come up with some absolutely brilliant follow-up campaign. If their follow-up campaign is terrific, then this ad is very effective and the rationale makes sense. But that's going to be extremely difficult.

Chrysler is trying to sell you an image. They want you to buy a car because you can identify with the city that makes it. If I were to guess, the typical Chrysler buyers are lower income younger people who are more worried about gas mileage, price, dependability, etc.... I'm torn whether they're actually targeting those blue collar Detroit workers or trying to make the car hip hop (with a white rapper). So does it sell you an image? Confusedly. Does it sell you the car? Not even close. Let's face it, right now, it's just a cool commercial that gets people talking.

BigRedChief

02-08-2011, 08:54 PM

Let's face it, right now, it's just a cool commercial that gets people talking.jeeeezzz man thats our point, not yours.

chiefzilla1501

02-08-2011, 08:55 PM

Paid search doesn't get you #1. I think you are looking at what is on the sheet and giving zero credit to the next level of influence.

You are counting the amount of people a bike shop owner tells about the bike and giving no love to the guy that goes to his bike club and tells everyone about it.

Their message? Is everywhere now. Absolutely every where. They are turning the heads of people who influence other people.

People trust the word of mouth of other people more than from a company directly. And right now that word of mouth is about Chrysler and it is popular. More people watched this SB than any show in history.

I'm not discrediting that at all. But people are claiming that a $12M ad that generated buzz and will probably get about 1 week of spikes in google searches is brilliant? Brilliant is Old Spice doing the same exact thing using cheap youtube videos that cost practically nothing. And by the way, that little kid in the Darth Vader suit? VW spent $3M (probably close to nothing in production costs) for a 30-second spot and that ad has 22M views to Chrysler's 4M on 1/4 of the budget. Brilliant is Dove using fat women and getting all the national networks to talk about their campaign... for free.

The Chrysler ad is not going to sustain buzz the way Old Spice did. It's not getting nearly the kind of initial buzz as an ad like VW's is. They spent a shitload of money and got good initial buzz. It's not money badly spent, but it's most definitely not money well spent unless they kill with a great follow-up campaign.

chiefzilla1501

02-08-2011, 08:58 PM

jeeeezzz man thats our point, not yours.

If you spent $12M to get people to talk about you and it doesn't sell any cars, what's the point? There are a gazillion things you can do with $12M and get 4M youtube views and get people talking about it.

Pitt Gorilla

02-08-2011, 09:04 PM

What about Dr. Pepper/7-up?The Cola market.

Guru

02-08-2011, 09:58 PM

Hell, I didn't even care for the ad since eminem was in it. Plus, it was a car I would never buy anyway.

chiefzilla1501

02-12-2011, 06:49 PM

FYI....
http://www.google.com/trends?q=chrysler+200&ctab=0&geo=all&date=mtd&sort=0
Chrysler 200 search is almost at the same level it was before the Super Bowl

And oops....
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/chevys-wild-ride-most-watched-ad-of-all-time-while-little-darth-vader-is-super-bowl-favorite/
Chrysler's ad didn't even break the top 10 of most recalled nor did it even crack the top 5 for most liked. Not good, when you're spending $12-13M on your ad while those in the top 5 spent well less than $3M.

So can I again reiterate that this ad was just a cool ad that does very little to help the company it represents? And by the way, turns out Eminem was too expensive for Chrysler to feature in later ads. So now the "Made in Detroit" ads are just a guy doing a voiceover as a car drives in Detroit.

This campaign is going to be a very expensive "mediocre."

rtmike

02-15-2011, 08:02 PM

The Super Bowl Commercial That Everyone Is Talking About Almost Didn't Happen

Sorry, no cribb notes.

http://autos.aol.com/article/chrysler-em...c1_lnk3%7C42433

Over the past decade, rap legend Eminem has been approached over 100 times to license his classic "Lose Yourself." Up until now, he has refused all bidders, turning down millions of dollars along the way, according to Joel Martin, who controls the Eminem music catalog and has one-third of the writing credit on the song.

But that was until Chrysler chief marketing officer Olivier Francois started selling Martin on how much he wanted the music, and how he had an idea to show off Detroit to the Super Bowl audience, the largest TV audience of the year. To seal the deal, Francois drove a new Chrysler 200 to Martin's office in the Detroit suburb of Ferndale a few days into the New Year. The car was fresh off of the assembly line in neaby Sterling Heights, and hadn't even gone on sale. Francois had Martin and Eminem (whose real name is Marshall Bruce Mathers III) drive the car, as well as a new Chrysler 300, to try and get the music legend to play ball.

"The 200 was like $18,000 and felt like a BMW... We were really impressed," says Martin, who told AOL Autos they agreed to take millions of dollars less than what they had been previously offered in order to be part of the Chrysler ad. "[It was] about 20 percent of what we could have gotten from someone else," he said.

Martin said the idea for the ad that would show Detroit for what it really is, from hard working people to the abandoned buildings, as well as the art and music scene, appealed to them. "The script they showed us was like nothing I had ever seen before," he said, "and Marshall felt the same way."

But he and Eminem had doubts about both the idea and the slogan written by Wieden & Kennedy, the ad agency based in Portland, Oregon. They didn't think "Imported From Detroit" would make it through the bureaucracy at Chrysler. To them, it sounded like one of those ideas that a company gets ginned up about, but then kills for being to crazy and bold. "We just didn't think it was going to fly," said Martin.

The first phase was allowing Chrysler to use the song (though not the lyrics) for a press conference at the North America International Auto Show in Detroit on January 11. Composer Luis Resto, who has the third credit on the song, actually came to Detroit's Cobo Hall and played the music live to go with Francois' presentation. Though the Super Bowl ad deal was not in place yet, Martin and Resto did not charge for the auto show usage. "We were into something pretty interesting, so we wanted to see where it was going," says Resto, who agreed to make some changes to the music based on what Francois was asking for -- an unusual role for the CEO of an auto maker brand to play

In the week following the auto show, more negotiations about a Super Bowl ad continued. When Eminem eventually agreed to not only have the music be used in the commercial, but to appear in it as well, Francois was on the west coast at a press junket. He had to rush back to Detroit and start overseeing the shooting the ad the week of January 23 -- just two weeks before the game. It would show Detroit at its grayest and grimmest.

Which car would be used in the ad? The whole idea of the ad is to position Chrysler as a legitimate luxury brand. But the Chrysler 200 has a starting price under $20,000, and it has not enjoyed terrific reviews in the press. It was adapted from the Chrysler Sebring, a much-derided model that had questionable styling and a sub-par interior. While the new 200 is vastly improved, perhaps the more obvious choice to star in the Super Bowl ad alongside Eminem would have been the Chrysler 300 sedan. This is a first-class redesign of a well-loved product that reaches a fully optioned sticker price of around $46,000. The problem is that the 300 is built in Brampton, Ontario. Though not far from Detroit, Chrysler felt it could not launch the new brand idea to a Super Bowl audience with a car built in Canada.

Even after settling on the car and getting Eminem's full involvement, there were a few more wrinkles to iron out. The NFL had not allowed two-minute ads, establishing a limit of 90-seconds. The script, which called for taking viewers through numerous images of the city of Detroit and winding up at the Fox Theatre with Eminem and a local African-American choir, required two minutes to be told properly, Francois believed.

Then there was the iced tea issue. Eminem was appearing in another Super Bowl ad -- sort of. Months before, Eminem had agreed to have a claymation image of himself star in a Lipton Brisk iced tea ad. The script calls for the clay Eminem to act like a diva, complaining about the demands of doing a commercial, and how he insists in shooting in his own house so he doesn't have to go anywhere, and records his own songs. When a claymation corporate executive in the ad tells him he can't rename the product, the rap star shoves him off the roof of the building. Ouch.

The ad was anything but serious, and would be juxtaposed against the much more earnest message from Chrysler. It would also mean that Chrysler would no longer be unique in using Eminem. "We felt so strongly about the idea and script that we looked right past it," said Francois.

It paid off. "Chrysler 200" was the number two search term on Super Bowl Sunday on Google, beating out the Black Eyed Peas, the band that performed during halftime. Search traffic for the Chrysler 200 on AOL Autos was 685 percent higher than normal on Monday and it topped all vehicle searches on AOL's Autoblog.com. NBC Nightly News did a feature on the ad. And a poll conducted by auto industry trade weekly Automotive News, which asked readers to rank all the auto ads in the big game, chose the Chrysler ad by a long-shot, with more than 40 percent choosing it by Tuesday after the game. At publication, the ad had received over five million viewings on YouTube, a number that will likely grow, as Chrysler was one of the only advertisers not to make their commercial available before the game.

"In a way, the Brisk ad kind of set up the Chrysler ad because the character talks about why he never does ads," said Martin.

Indeed, Eminem had appeared in an Apple iTunes ad several years ago, though it was just to promote the iTunes release of a greatest hits album. Apple, says Martin, asked to use "Lose Yourself" to promote the whole Apple product line. Eminem and Martin turned down Apple and its celebrity CEO Steve Jobs

"The city of Detroit is really important to Marshall," says Martin. "Two years ago, Marshall was down for the count, and he understands what Chrysler is trying to do," says the rapper's partner, referring to the extremely poor reception of his 2009 album "Relapse," which was released after a five year hiatus.

That was the same year that Chrysler was forced into bankruptcy and accepted a bailout from the Federal government to stay in business. "I felt very strongly about this piece of music and Eminem," says Francois. "I don't believe in using celebrities and famous people just for the sake of it... Their story has to make sense in the story of the ad."

Francois was born in France, and has been running the marketing for Fiat in Europe, as well as the overall business of the Lancia brand in Europe. His job in the U.S. is similar, running all marketing for Chrysler, as well as all the business of the Chrysler brand. As a foreigner, and only a part-time resident in the Detroit area, his interest in the city's plight and story ironically runs deeper in some ways than auto industry executives who have spent their whole career around the city.

Eminem has been doing more publicity and promotion work in support of his latest album, "Recovery," with the National Hockey League, video game company Activision, and Pepsi, which markets Brisk. He is also performing on this weekend's Grammy awards show, where he has eleven nominations, the most of any artist. But his anthem, "Lose Yourself," is only going to be used for Chrysler. The ad will run in shorter versions on other TV broadcasts.

Advertising Age magazine referred to Eminem as "the comeback story of the year," which is another association Francois would like to see for Chrysler, as well as the City of Detroit.

HemiEd

02-15-2011, 09:09 PM

they're not the same at all...and that commercial has absolutely nothing to do with "why this country is going to shit"....in fact, it's evidence of some positive efforts to do something for actual ****ing workers in this actual ****ing country...

it was a great ad, and $$ well spent

the overall response in this thread from the planet is very encouraging.